George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Wright, I do not for a moment dispute that there are a variety of views on this matter, and all you have done is recite the views of some who have been well-known advocates of that particular point of view for a very long time. I suspect that the sorts of bodies or individuals to whom you have referred because of the particular approach they take to this debate would never be happy with any extension of the powers of the national security agencies. They are entitled to take that view, but the government has to do what human rights lawyers and academic lawyers like Professor Saul never have to do—that is, consider as well the safety of the public.

These measures are extraordinary measures. That is why they are sunsetted. That is why the government is of the view that, from time to time, we ought to ask ourselves the question as a result of the mechanism of this legislation whether they are still needed. The time arose this year for us to ask ourselves that question. And in view of the events which I will not be tedious and describe again but of which we all know, the government concluded that those powers were necessary—indeed I dare say more necessary now than they were in 2005.

Therefore, really all we are doing is having a discussion about whether four years or 10 years is the right period, and the government has acknowledged that it would do no harm at all to bring these powers back for review again four years hence, which is why I am moving this amendment. It seems to me, Senator, that when you say that the powers are very seldom used you go very close to complaining that what is wrong with the powers is that they are used too seldom. My rejoinder to you is that the fact that the powers are used so seldom shows that they have not been used arbitrarily. The fact that on rare occasions they have been used is proof enough, I think, that they do have a utility.

There are some who would like to see these powers not sunsetted at all. There are some who consider them a sufficiently important apparatus that they should be a permanent feature of our law. I am not one of those. Because these are unusual powers, they should, in my view, be sunsetted, and that is what the government is doing.

Lastly, Senator, let me address your criticism that because the sunset period in this case does not run out until 2015 the powers ought not to have been included in this piece of legislation but in another piece of legislation. I see some merit in your point of view, but there are two problems with it. First of all, it assumes that there has not been careful deliberation about the validity and utility of extending these powers in preparing this legislation. I can assure you that the same care and deliberation and prudence that would have been brought to bear on this exercise had it been undertaken in 2015 has been brought to bear on the exercise having been undertaken in 2014. Secondly, Senator Wright, I am sure you will see the point of dealing with these national security legislation issues in a comprehensive way. We have already had one tranche of legislation about the agency powers. This tranche of legislation is designed particularly to deal with the threat to our safety of returning foreign fighters. And there will be, as the government has announced, legislation in the near future concerning the mandatory retention of metadata.

It is not a healthy thing for the parliament to spend all its time dealing with national security legislation. We want to get this right by dealing with all of the various aspects of this complex body of legislation in a coherent debate that brings all the elements together as well as we may, in the same debate or the same series of debates, rather than doing it piecemeal.